Cliffy B defends X1 used games policy
This topic is locked from further discussion.
http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.com/2013/06/cliff-blezinski-shockingly-defends.html
What say you System Warriors?
heeweesRus
Cliffy B can suck SONY's dust.
The used game market is better for the NEW game market then not having one at all.
See, here's his problem. He's assuming that everyone has unlimited resources (which includes both time AND money) to spend on games. If we want to sum up the used game "problem", it's that "not enough new games are being sold." That's the problem. Relative to what was invested to make the games, not enough of the games are selling. There are two things wrong with the idea that the used game market is to blame for this: 1) Many gamers have limited income. Don't tell me I'm wrong, the PS3 sold like $hit early on in its lifetime largely because of the price tag. Many of the people buying used games are buying them because they're CHEAPER, many people selling used games do so because that gives them money to spend on MORE GAMES. And yes, I realize that Gamestop is a bad choice for this because they rip you off, but we can consider that a "convenience fee". In any case, the used game industry became big enough to be a "problem" because price is a really big f***ing issue for many people. Do people like Cliffy B honestly think that if used games were to go away that people would suddenly just buy everything new? Well, yeah, I guess they'd have to buy everything new. But their OVERALL SPENDING wouldn't skyrocket, they'd simply buy fewer games. How does that solve the problem of "our games aren't selling well enough?" 2) And it's not just about money. It's about time. Even if we decide that it's best to target the people who have the money to buy a $hitload of games at $60, we come up with another problem. At $60 per game, that adds up FAST. And the people who actually have the money to spend that much on games typically don't have the TIME to do so because they tend to be well-adjusted adults with jobs and families and responsibilities. You might be able to afford a gaming budget of a million dollars a year. But if that's the case, then you probably work your ass off and don't really have a lot of TIME to spend playing videogames. This has the same result: even if you can afford to buy everything new, then you're already buying as many games as you're willing to buy. Money isn't the limiting factor for those people, the limiting factor is TIME. Which means that they're still not going to suddenly up and buy more games. 3) Ultimately, this is about competition within the industry. If the industry doesn't have enough money coming in to survive, then that tells me that the industry is just too big and some companies just plain need to die off. Consumers have a set idea of how much time and money they're willing to put into gaming. Forcing restrictions on customers doesn't make customers shell out more time and money, it just makes consumers more selective about who gets their time and money. This dude should understand that very well, considering that he's one of the people who made it. Earlier this year, he made a comment about how developers are only worth what they can negotiate and that most developers simply are not worth what they think they are worth. He was absolutely 100% spot on with that comment, so it's mind boggling how he could be so wrong on the used game issue. This dude is a big name in the industry, most developers are not. This dude is driving ferarris, most developers are not. He's there partly because of luck (no one has total control over their lives) but he also got to that point because he f***ing earned it. He likely struggled and worked his ass off to reach the top in a highly competitive industry, while other developers fizzled out and died because "they weren't good enough." A message to Cliff: you got where you're at now because you climbed to the top of the hill, and there isn't enough room on that hill for everyone. That's the mindset that he needs to keep, because that's likely the mindset that got him where he is today. Most developers aren't worth what they think they deserve to make, and most GAMES aren't worth $60 new. No one's entitled to be successful just because they entered the race. This isn't kindergarten or the special olympics where everyone gets a medal for trying. You start thinking you're entitled to success because "boo hoo, making games is hard", then you're gonna suffer for it. EDIT: Actually, I just realized that I got the two "GOW" guys mixed up. The guy who made the "you aren't good enough" comment was David Jaffe, who worked on God, not Gears. Anyway, Cliffy B needs to listen to what Davie J said.http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.com/2013/06/cliff-blezinski-shockingly-defends.html
What say you System Warriors?
heeweesRus
[QUOTE="heeweesRus"]See, here's his problem. He's assuming that everyone has unlimited resources (which includes both time AND money) to spend on games. If we want to sum up the used game "problem", it's that "not enough new games are being sold." That's the problem. Relative to what was invested to make the games, not enough of the games are selling. There are two things wrong with the idea that the used game market is to blame for this: 1) Many gamers have limited income. Don't tell me I'm wrong, the PS3 sold like $hit early on in its lifetime largely because of the price tag. Many of the people buying used games are buying them because they're CHEAPER, many people selling used games do so because that gives them money to spend on MORE GAMES. And yes, I realize that Gamestop is a bad choice for this because they rip you off, but we can consider that a "convenience fee". In any case, the used game industry became big enough to be a "problem" because price is a really big f***ing issue for many people. Do people like Cliffy B honestly think that if used games were to go away that people would suddenly just buy everything new? Well, yeah, I guess they'd have to buy everything new. But their OVERALL SPENDING wouldn't skyrocket, they'd simply buy fewer games. How does that solve the problem of "our games aren't selling well enough?" 2) And it's not just about money. It's about time. Even if we decide that it's best to target the people who have the money to buy a $hitload of games at $60, we come up with another problem. At $60 per game, that adds up FAST. And the people who actually have the money to spend that much on games typically don't have the TIME to do so because they tend to be well-adjusted adults with jobs and families and responsibilities. You might be able to afford a gaming budget of a million dollars a year. But if that's the case, then you probably work your ass off and don't really have a lot of TIME to spend playing videogames. This has the same result: even if you can afford to buy everything new, then you're already buying as many games as you're willing to buy. Money isn't the limiting factor for those people, the limiting factor is TIME. Which means that they're still not going to suddenly up and buy more games. 3) Ultimately, this is about competition within the industry. If the industry doesn't have enough money coming in to survive, then that tells me that the industry is just too big and some companies just plain need to die off. Consumers have a set idea of how much time and money they're willing to put into gaming. Forcing restrictions on customers doesn't make customers shell out more time and money, it just makes consumers more selective about who gets their time and money. This dude should understand that very well, considering that he's one of the people who made it. Earlier this year, he made a comment about how developers are only worth what they can negotiate and that most developers simply are not worth what they think they are worth. He was absolutely 100% spot on with that comment, so it's mind boggling how he could be so wrong on the used game issue. This dude is a big name in the industry, most developers are not. This dude is driving ferarris, most developers are not. He's there partly because of luck (no one has total control over their lives) but he also got to that point because he f***ing earned it. He likely struggled and worked his ass off to reach the top in a highly competitive industry, while other developers fizzled out and died because "they weren't good enough." A message to Cliff: you got where you're at now because you climbed to the top of the hill, and there isn't enough room on that hill for everyone. That's the mindset that he needs to keep, because that's likely the mindset that got him where he is today. Most developers aren't worth what they think they deserve to make, and most GAMES aren't worth $60 new. No one's entitled to be successful just because they entered the race. This isn't kindergarten or the special olympics where everyone gets a medal for trying. You start thinking you're entitled to success because "boo hoo, making games is hard", then you're gonna suffer for it. EDIT: Actually, I just realized that I got the two "GOW" guys mixed up. The guy who made the "you aren't good enough" comment was David Jaffe, who worked on God, not Gears. Anyway, Cliffy B needs to listen to what Davie J said.http://thegamesofchance.blogspot.com/2013/06/cliff-blezinski-shockingly-defends.html
What say you System Warriors?
MrGeezer
Â
Â
QFT!!!! Cliffy B is irrelevant nowdays anyway.
Log in to comment